The Military Thread

[Lee]

What's the blast radius for this bad boy like?

Also confused; can someone explain MOAB vs numerous smaller bombs dropped simultaneously who's "strength" is greater?

So my best friend at work is an ex army ranger and has been on a mission to a region 9 months after a MOAB was dropped in Iraq.

While officially its a 1 mile radius of distruction, according to his experience, the trees were all tilted 50-100 miles leading up to ground zero of the MOAB.

They are very powerful and waves do reach far out. Its because you are trying to use the shock waves to collapse the tunnels this is the correct strategy and multiple bombs does not work as they will just consistently reach the surface only.

 

[Lee]

About a mile in every direction.

Which I'm assuming means a number of civilians were killed as well. But hey, got to send that message.

The shock waves are far greater, and civilians are always casualties of war unfortunately, but this was not a message, you dont drop a MOAB to send a message, you drop it to destroy a major compound. You want to hurt ISIS capabilities, not send a message.

What we did in Syria was send a message, what we did with ISIS was seek and destroy.

 

[Lee]

When was the first time, by the way? Just curious.

We have dropped several in the region, but allot of this information is classified. He wont tell me classified info like that, but he was in the military 10-15 years ago and has been aware during his time as a Ranger of dropping MOABs, so I would say we have dropped some 10-15 years ago.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Also I think this is more on the advisors, ie experts than Trump, but not sure why you think this is bad.

Apparently, Trump himself did not make the decision to drop that bomb -- wasn't even asked. The authority/decision to use that bomb was made by General Nicholson, the senior U.S. military commander in Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...ssive-bomb-strike-reports-say/article/2620294

Frankly, the idea that the authority to use any conventional weapon in the arsenal finally has been delegated to field commanders is a huge positive to me. Enough micromanaging of military operations from Washington.

@King Stannis

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Not changing horses per se. Simply not buying the entire run which is common practice and no matter how the price drops by volume, it will never be cheaper than other planes at both the sticker price and price-per-flight.

But, I see your point.

I'm not trying to say that changing horses is necessarily a bad idea in this particular case. It may actually be the smart thing to do. I was speaking more generally.

As I said, all I've got is a little knowledge, and a lot of clichés when it comes to aircraft procurement. Actually feel more comfortable talking about rotary-wing capabilities than fixed-wing. Standard ground-guy distaste for jet jockeys....

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The US Plan to Neutralize North Korea Doesn’t Involve the Military

President Trump and members of his administration have recently struck a very friendly tone toward China, particularly with respect to that country’s apparent support for the effort to “denuclearize” the North Korean regime of Kim Jong-un. But a senior Republican member of Congress on Sunday suggested that, behind the scenes, the administration is working on a different option that would be much more confrontational.

In an appearance on CNN, House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) said that despite indications that Beijing is concerned about nuclear proliferation in North Korea, the Chinese government is still supporting the Korean economy and its nuclear program. He said there are plans being put in place to hit 10 Chinese banks that do business in North Korea with crippling sanctions to cut off funding to the Kim regime.

The move would be similar to a highly successful effort in 2007 to cut off money to Pyongyang. At that time, the US imposed sanctions on Banco Delta Asia, a Macao-based bank that did considerable business with the North Korean regime. The impact was severe, on both the bank and North Korea, Royce said. Other banks, intimidated by the US move, restricted or eliminated their dealings with the North Korean government.

Directly harming China's financial institutions would also be a much more aggressive step against China than anything the administration has proposed so far.

“What we’re urging this president to do at this point is what was done once before with Banco Delta Asia and that is, shut down any foreign banks doing any kind of business in hard currency with North Korea, because when we last did that, we shut off the money for their program and we shut it down tight as a drum. And I think that’s the next step that has to be deployed.”

Asked by host Jake Tapper if he knew of any plans within the Trump administration to implement such sanctions, Royce said, “I do” and added that he and his colleagues in Congress are exploring other economic penalties as well.

“If China does cut off all transactions with North Korea...the dictator will not be able to pay his generals,” Royce said. “That’s what happened the last time we had these kinds of sanctions imposed on Chinese banks...That’s the leverage and we need that kind of political leverage because that’s the way to get the attention of the regime in North Korea and have them reconsider their nuclear program....”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-plan-neutralized-north-korea-182600158.html

 

[AZ_]

The US Plan to Neutralize North Korea Doesn’t Involve the Military

President Trump and members of his administration have recently struck a very friendly tone toward China, particularly with respect to that country’s apparent support for the effort to “denuclearize” the North Korean regime of Kim Jong-un. But a senior Republican member of Congress on Sunday suggested that, behind the scenes, the administration is working on a different option that would be much more confrontational.

In an appearance on CNN, House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) said that despite indications that Beijing is concerned about nuclear proliferation in North Korea, the Chinese government is still supporting the Korean economy and its nuclear program. He said there are plans being put in place to hit 10 Chinese banks that do business in North Korea with crippling sanctions to cut off funding to the Kim regime.

The move would be similar to a highly successful effort in 2007 to cut off money to Pyongyang. At that time, the US imposed sanctions on Banco Delta Asia, a Macao-based bank that did considerable business with the North Korean regime. The impact was severe, on both the bank and North Korea, Royce said. Other banks, intimidated by the US move, restricted or eliminated their dealings with the North Korean government.

Directly harming China's financial institutions would also be a much more aggressive step against China than anything the administration has proposed so far.

“What we’re urging this president to do at this point is what was done once before with Banco Delta Asia and that is, shut down any foreign banks doing any kind of business in hard currency with North Korea, because when we last did that, we shut off the money for their program and we shut it down tight as a drum. And I think that’s the next step that has to be deployed.”

Asked by host Jake Tapper if he knew of any plans within the Trump administration to implement such sanctions, Royce said, “I do” and added that he and his colleagues in Congress are exploring other economic penalties as well.

“If China does cut off all transactions with North Korea...the dictator will not be able to pay his generals,” Royce said. “That’s what happened the last time we had these kinds of sanctions imposed on Chinese banks...That’s the leverage and we need that kind of political leverage because that’s the way to get the attention of the regime in North Korea and have them reconsider their nuclear program....”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-plan-neutralized-north-korea-182600158.html

Thought this was, interesting...?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Thought this was, interesting...?

Looks like we get to live in "interesting" times.

What we're doing is dangerous, but necessary. Hope to hell it works, because thinking of that little shit with nukes and a delivery system is just scary as hell.

 

[AZ_]

Looks like we get to live in "interesting" times.

What we're doing is dangerous, but necessary. Hope to hell it works, because thinking of that little shit with nukes and a delivery system is just scary as hell.

The US has far more pressing and realistic concerns at the moment, considering they can barely get their missiles to get out of the gate at this point.

Especially knowing their daddy (China) ultimately pulls the major strings.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The US has far more pressing and realistic concerns at the moment,

What other more pressing and realistic concerns do we have that prevent us from addressing NK at the same time?

considering they can barely get their missiles to get out of the gate at this point.

That is the exact same logic of kicking the can down the road that got us to this point in the first place. They have nukes. They are developing/testing ICBM technology. Would you prefer to wait until they have the nukes and the delivery systems to reach the U.S.?

 

[AZ_]

What other more pressing and realistic concerns do we have that prevent us from addressing NK at the same time?

None, really.

That is the exact same logic of kicking the can down the road that got us to this point in the first place. They have nukes. They are developing/testing ICBM technology. Would you prefer to wait until they have the nukes and the delivery systems to reach the U.S.?

Not particularly, no.

But it doesn't appear that this administration went in with a good understanding of the issue.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

But it doesn't appear that this administration went in with a good understanding of the issue.

What has the Administration does that leads you to say they don't have a good understanding of the issue?

Because to be honest, I'm pretty shocked at how coherent and well-thought out our current actions appear to be.

 

[AZ_]

What has the Administration does that leads you to say they don't have a good understanding of the issue?

Because to be honest, I'm pretty shocked at how coherent and well-thought out our current actions appear to be.

I think there is a marked difference between their projected plan and their unscripted answers to questions on this issue.

Their plan, on it's face, isn't going to shatter the world (hopefully). I just think between Trump's interviews on the issue and Pence's commentary, I don't see a path to executing such a plan or in Trump's case a basic understanding of the relationship between China and North Korea.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think there is a marked difference between their projected plan and their unscripted answers to questions on this issue.

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. Can you be specific?

Their plan, on it's face, isn't going to shatter the world (hopefully). I just think between Trump's interviews on the issue and Pence's commentary, I don't see a path to executing such a plan or in Trump's case a basic understanding of the relationship between China and North Korea.

Again...I feel like we're watching two completely different series of events. It looks to me is if we are maximizing our leverage with China. so as to pressure them to act on NK.

I should add that having an aura of unpredictability, even rashness/irresponsibility, is very useful when it comes to this kind of situation. You want both China and NK itself to be worried that we might do something unthinkable. The last thing the Chinese want is a shooting war on their southern border, and the more we make them think that might happen if they don't do their utmost to rein in that country, the better.

 

[AZ_]

I honestly don't know what you mean by this. Can you be specific?



Again...I feel like we're watching two completely different series of events. It looks to me is if we are maximizing our leverage with China. so as to pressure them to act on NK.

I should add that having an aura of unpredictability, even rashness/irresponsibility, is very useful when it comes to this kind of situation. You want both China and NK itself to be worried that we might do something unthinkable.

At the moment, there is a PLAN to maximize leverage with China. There hasn't been action on that plan to this point.

The article you posted a few posts upwards details how they'll go about a non-military plan in a coordinated, well-thought out manner.

Trump's commentary on the subject has been far less encouraging:

Here is a quote of his on Twitter: “If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them!”

His flip flop on China as a currency manipulator.

His commentary after speaking with President Xi:

"After listening for 10 minutes, I realised it's not so easy," Mr Trump said.

"I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power over North Korea. But it's not what you would think."



Pence seemingly shifting toward the threat of using the military, contrary to your article above:

“North Korea would do well not to test his resolve -- or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.”

and

"All options are on the table to achieve the objectives and ensure the stability of the people of this country."